An earth destined for fire and complete destruction is made clear by 2 Peter 3:10,11: "But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a mighty roar and the elements will be dissolved by fire and the earth and everything in it will be found out. ... everything is to be dissolved this way," (NAB; "Total destruction is assumed (11)," notes 3,10). "...the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat" (2 Peter 3:12). "But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men" (2 Peter 3:7). Peter's warning reemphasized Zephaniah's warning, where the ancient prophet transmitted the Almighty's words, "I will utterly consume all things from off the face of the ground, saith Jehovah. I will consume man and beast; I will consume the birds of the heavens, and the fishes of the sea, and the stumbling blocks with the wicked; and I will cut off man from off the face of the ground, saith Jehovah" (Zephaniah 1:2,3)
Complete destruction of man on earth is intended. " Their blood will be poured out like dust and their entrails like dung. 18 Neither their silver nor their gold will be able to save them on the day of the LORD’s wrath.” In the fire of his jealousy the whole earth will be consumed, for he will make a sudden end of all who live on the earth (Zephaniah 1:17, 18). The Jehovah's Witnesses theory that they alone, their great crowd, will survive Armageddon and be ruled from heaven by the 144,000 is simply not in accord with Scripture. http://144000.110mb.com/trinity/index-2.html#11
jonathan dough
JoinedPosts by jonathan dough
-
24
The word "Armageddon" has been fading away from WT publications
by Alfred in1960s 1,095 times.
1970s 152 times(drastic drop after 1975).
1980s 438 times.
-
-
jonathan dough
-
78
The WATCHTOWER isn't DECEITFUL , they are just IMPERFECT
by Minimommi ini recently started questioning my beliefs and i am not happy with what i found out.
i am married to a born in who admits that wtbs has some problems.
one of his favorite scriptures to quote is psalms 146:3 to "not put your trust in nobles", including the so called fds.
-
-
jonathan dough
Deceitful? The evidence is overwhelming.
Go to Jwfacts.com and read how they have rewritten history regarding 1914 prophecies. It will astound you.
http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/failed-1914-predictions.php
Their anti-trinity pamphlet "Should you Believe in the Trinity" is packed full of deception, particularly as they relate to trinitarian's definition of the trinity, misquoting scholarly sources, and methods of analysis. It's covered in detail here. Claiming "imperfection" won't wash anymore. They know exactly what they are doing.
-
21
So... I got the 607 defense articles sent to me...
by i_drank_the_wine in...by a family member who recalled that this is one of my major apostate beefs.
the articles themselves are disgusting pieces of mis-information and require some serious mental gymnastics to actually believe.
however, they're so damn long-winded and waste so much time on pointless stuff like the 2 pages on the jw's beliefs about the 70 year period, that i am debating on whether or not to write the loyal j-dub family member back on it or not.. it shows just how brainwashed that family member is in that they know that 607 is a problem date, yet happily forward the articles as soem sort of proof while never once reading anything on the topic with an iota of thinking.. after years of having everything i've said on these topics ignored by everyone in my family that i've tried contacting over and over again, i really feel like taking the time to pick through their trash is going to be a big waste.
-
-
jonathan dough
Print this out and bury them with it. Of course they'll throw it in the trash, which speaks for itself, but they'll know there are opposing views. Explain that those arguments have been thoroughly discredited, even before they were printed. And make it a point to read the JW articles as well.
http://144000.110mb.com/607/index.html
I also recommend Jonsson's recent critique of those articles:
-
36
Help With The Societys View Of Jesus Ransom Applying Only To The Annointed.
by AvocadoJake ini have read bits and pieces about the wt saying jesus ransom sacrifice only applies to the annointed.
the annointed in turn, will be mediators between earth dwellers and jesus christ to jehovah.
to get to jehovah, we know we must approach him in jesus christ name, when did the gb become the middle men between jesus christ and those who think they will be living on the earth.
-
-
jonathan dough
Watchtower 1979 April 1 p.31 “Is Jesus the “mediator” only for anointed Christians? … So in this strict Biblical sense Jesus is the “mediator” only for anointed Christians. …The “great crowd” of “other sheep” that is forming today is not in that new covenant. However, by their associating with the “little flock” of those yet in that covenant they come under benefits that flow from that new covenant.”Watchtower 1979 November 15 p.27 Benefiting from “One Mediator Between God and Men” “They recognize that they are not spiritual Israelites in the new covenant mediated by Jesus Christ, nor part of the “chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation.”—1 Pet. 2:9. 24 Yet they do benefit from the operation of the new covenant. They benefit from this just as, in ancient Israel, the “alien resident” benefited from residing in among the Israelites who were in the Law covenant.—Ex. 20:10; Lev. 19:10, 33, 34; Rev. 7:9-15. 25 To keep in relationship with “our Savior, God,” the “great crowd” needs to remain united with the remnant of spiritual Israelites.”
Aside from the obvious, that Christ's death brought forgiveness of sins for all true believers committed in this life, those who obtain this benefit, God's people, must be parties to the New Covenant.
Any man not a party to the New Covenant cannot obtain its benefits anymore than a Baal-worshipping Assyrian could obtain benefits under the Mosaic Law not being a circumcised member of the nation of Israel. And no one can have their robes washed in the blood of the Lamb Jesus, have their sins permanently forgiven in the Christian era and be perfected or justified (declared righteous) during the thousand year reign under an expired New Covenant anymore than a Christian today can have his or her sins forgiven under the obsolete Mosaic law.Make no mistake about this one fact: it is absolutely impossible, logically or scripturally, for the Jehovah’s Witnesses to educate the resurrected to perfection (justification, a declaration of righteousness and reconciliation with God; a state of sinlessness) under any set of laws, especially the so-called Law scrolls of Revelation 20:12. The gift of reconciliation, redemption, sanctification, justification and forgiveness of sins through the exercise of faith and God's gift of grace is only possible by and through the New Covenant of Christ’s blood.
http://144000.110mb.com/144000/i-4.html
The “great crowd” of “other sheep” that is forming today is not in that new covenant. However, by their associating with the “little flock” of those yet in that covenant they come under benefits that flow from that new covenant.”Watchtower 1979 November 15 p.27
Not possible.
Only the sins of the 144,000 are forgiven under the Jehovah's Witnesses' new covenant, which is clearly not a Bible teaching[Home]
Secondly, the Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that only God and the 144,000 are parties to the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-34, and therefore no one else besides the 144,000 can achieve perfection because under their New Covenant only the sins of the 144,000 are forgiven.34 “And they will no more teach each one his companion and each one his brother, saying, ‘KNOW Jehovah!’ for they will all of them know me, from the least one of them even to the greatest one of them,” is the utterance of Jehovah. “For I shall forgive their error, and their sin I shall remember no more.” (Jer. 31:34 NWT)
This is another important point to remember, and difficult for the average Christian to comprehend, but the only people whose sins are forgiven pursuant to Jesus' sacrifice in this life - from Adam to the beginning of the thousand year reign - are the 144,000. Furtheremore, the benefit of the forgiveness of sin by Christ's sacrifice is only available to earthly subjects of Christ's thousand year kingdom in the next life. Sins of this life are not forgiven because the Jehovah's Witnesses teach, incorrectly, that the wages of sin for men is death - death is punishment for man's sins. They state:
This could not mean the record of their past lives nor a set of rules that judges them on the basis of their past lives. For since the "wages sin pays is death," these by their death have received the wages of their sin in the past. (Ro 6:7, 23)
[Jesus] repurchased them so that they could become his family, doing this by presenting the full value of his ransom sacrifice to the God of absolute justice in heaven. (Heb 9:24) He thereby gains a Bride, a heavenly congregation formed of his followers. (compare Eph 5:23-27; Re 1:5,6; 5:9,10; 14:3,4). Messianic prophecies also show he will have "offspring" as an "Eternal Father." (Isa 53:10-12; 9:6,7) To be such, his ransom must embrace more than those of his Bride. In addition to those "bought from among mankind as firstfruits" to form that heavenly congregation, therefore, others are to benefit from his ransom sacrifice and gain everlasting life through the removal of their sins and accompanying imperfection. (Re 14:4; 1 Jo 2:1,2) Since those of the heavenly congregation serve with Christ as priests and "kings over the earth," such other recipients of the ransom benefits must be earthly subjects of Christ's kingdom and as children of an "eternal Father" they attain everlasting life. (Insight, 736)It is understandable why the Jehovah's Witnesses don't want mankind's sins forgiven in this life because it would deprive them of the ability to "educate them to perfection" during the thousand year reign. Otherwise, those who merit the resurrection would not have been resurrected as sin-laden mortals in need of perfection through the removal of sin through their sin-removal program. Or stated another way, the Jehovah's Witnesses need sinners to re-educate during the millenial reign. This would ostensibly include those Jehovah's Witnesses who are not of the 144,000 who would have been part of the Great Crowd had they lived long enough.
But even if the Jehovah's Witnesses' theory denying Christ's sacrifice for mankind in this life were true, they can't simply apply the benefits from one lifetime derived from one person to other people in a completely different life. Yet this transfer of forgiveness of sin by osmosis is precisely what they teach: The descendants, or "family," receive salvation by virtue of their descent. But Scripture teaches otherwise and emphasizes the importance of individual responsibility. Each individual is saved based on their righteousness, beliefs and conduct. YHWH God made this clear in the book of Ezekiel.... when a land sins against me by breaking faith, I stretch out my hand against it and break its staff of bread, I let famine loose upon it and cut off from it both man and beast; and even if these three men were in it, Noah, Daniel and Job, they could save only themselves by their virtue ... I swear they could save neither sons nor daughters; they alone would be saved. (Ezek. 15:13, 14, 16)
D) Only true believers who are parties to the New Covenant can receive forgiveness of sins and other attendant benefits[Home]
-
225
Do you hate God
by Star tiger ini beginning to think that this would be a good way of thinking, a totally righteous being would not let all the shit that is happenning to people prevail, this being cannot have the best interests of man as his first priority, it's all about ego and no matter how the human familty suffers, he hates pretty much everyone, as the tv show says, your fired, let's get a better god, one who at least gives everyone a chance!!.
i welcome comments from god apologists, to at least have an argument as to why they put they're faith in someone that does'nt give a shit about them!.
star tiger.
-
-
jonathan dough
I can't believe you said that. Even Christ disagrees with you. His word IS the spirit. "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life," John 6:63. And Paul at Colossians said "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly." For your information, I never claimed not to consult the Holy Spirit, not to rely on faith, but never faith or spirit in a vacuum, and never without the Bible as rudder.
Christ disagrees with what?
Christ doesn't mention the bible at all..
Now you're just being childish. If you can't see that Christ's words are recorded in the Bible, then you really have been listening to words in your head, and not the right ones. You're artificially splitting hairs to save face.
He does mention that people continuously search the scriptures to find life, but refuse to go to HIM for that life.
John 5:39 can also be interpreted as an imperative, a command to search scripture for life (NAB 5:39 Notes). And if the first interpretation is meant, it was directed to whom? Non-believing Jews who poured over the Old Testament.
"'In them ye think ye have eternal life' - The meaning of this is: "Ye think that by studying the Scriptures you will obtain eternal life. You suppose that they teach the way to future blessedness, and that by diligently studying them you will attain it." We see by this:
1. That the Jews in the time of Jesus were expecting a future state.
2. The Scriptures teach the way of life, and it is our duty to study them.
The Bereans are commended for searching the Scriptures Acts 17:11; and Timothy is said from a child to have "known the holy scriptures, which are able to make us wise unto salvation," 2 Timothy 3:15. Early life is the proper time to search the Bible, for they who seek the Lord early shall find him." Barnes Notes.
But Christ is the Word of God. Not the bible. It contains some of the words of Christ and of God... but it, itself, is not the Word of God.
To believers you are now being silly and coming across as such.
So perhaps it is possible that you are misunderstanding or interpreting scriptures wrongly?
Not on this, and I have mainstream theology on my side, two thousand years of it.
I asked you a question a while back, and hope you will answer it: Do you think faith in Christ and God would still be here without the bible, or do you think it would die if there was no bible? If you answered this already, then I missed it and I apologize.
Don't know, because it is a hypothetical irrelevancy because we do have the Bible, don't we. That's the reality we must deal with, although it is difficult to imagine faith in Jesus Christ if no one ever told us about Him or wrote about it. Catholics believe Christian salvation is open to people who have never heard of Christ, but that salvation nevertheless comes through Christ. But that's the exception, and like I said, your question is irrelevant today because we have the Bible, it's everywhere, and for those with access to it there is no excuse. And they most certainly can't gain Christian salvation by sitting in a room listening to voices and never hear a word of Scripture; they would have never heard of Christ in the first place. It doesn't work that way, although that's the argument you're trying to make. I know what you're getting at.
At Romans 10:14 Paul wrote: "How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?" The only way anyone today has heard of Christ is through the Bible, and that is what is preached, or should be preached. You're making a mountain out of a molehill and painting yourself into a corner.
Go ahead, have the last word, because you're just wasting a lot of peoples' time now. My concern is that many people will actually believe you, and be mislead by you. Hopefully they can see through the paucity of your arguments, although you're part-way there. Don't give up.
However, I think I can say that I do see a little more of 'how' God is going to do that, as per some of the scriptures that Shelby shared.
Shelby is dead wrong about this and much of what she writes. She went off the rails a long time ago. Be careful. I say this to everyone because she is way, way, out in left field to the point of being spooky. Try reading my response, and mainstream commentaries, to her diatribe at post 1291. Her analysis sounds holy, but it's spotty and weak and logically nonexistent. If you notice she has a tendency to bury people with gibberish she invented but can't defend, hoping no one will notice or bother to respond. Which most people don't. Although some probably feel the same way about me, so I've got to be careful, too. She has a very strange understanding of Scripture.
http://144000.110mb.com/trinity/index.html
Stick with mainstream Christian theology, old time religion, tried and true.
-
225
Do you hate God
by Star tiger ini beginning to think that this would be a good way of thinking, a totally righteous being would not let all the shit that is happenning to people prevail, this being cannot have the best interests of man as his first priority, it's all about ego and no matter how the human familty suffers, he hates pretty much everyone, as the tv show says, your fired, let's get a better god, one who at least gives everyone a chance!!.
i welcome comments from god apologists, to at least have an argument as to why they put they're faith in someone that does'nt give a shit about them!.
star tiger.
-
-
jonathan dough
Me: Utter nonsense, and unbiblical. What religion do you belong to? Judgment Day is approaching.
You: Love covers over a multitude of sins is biblical. I desire mercy is biblical. Do not judge lest you be judged is biblical. With the measure you use it will be measured against you is biblical. Be merciful, and mercy will be shown to you is biblical.Me: You intentionally left out what I was responding to, which is: "If you must interpret (which can be mistaken), then would you not rather err on the side of mercy, and of love, and of forgiveness to all? "Love covers over a multitude of sins".
Your statement with respect to "forgiveness to all" is not biblical." All mankind is not forgiven. You, like the JWs, seem to be teaching that all men are acquitted of their sins at death, which is utterly false.
No, I think the world needs the bible... because the world does walk by sight, at least most of us do so to start out. But once we walk by faith, and have the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, to teach us... then no, we no longer need the bible to teach us. Because we have the Spirit to teach us.
I can't believe you said that. Even Christ disagrees with you. His word IS the spirit. "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life," John 6:63. And Paul at Colossians said "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly." For your information, I never claimed not to consult the Holy Spirit, not to rely on faith, but never faith or spirit in a vacuum, and never without the Bible as rudder.
All right, I'll change that. He definately was addressing only the ignorant Roman soldiers who nailed him to the cross. And my previous post certainly verifies that.
It doesn't, at least it has not to me. I don't know how you can make that 'change' either, just like that. By what authority do you make a statment like that? How do you know?
I know that God doesn't forgive all people, including the Jews, who killed him because of all I have written elswhere that I'm not about to retype for you here. This idea that all humans are forgiven their sins goes against the core of the New Testament. It's crazy talk. Judgment Day is coming, and it includes some, if not most, of those of the Jewish faith.
Although he also consulted the pillars in Jerusalem and Peter for information on Christ.
Paul did not go to see those who were apostles... until 3 years after his revelation, when he went to get acquainted with Peter. He was proclaiming Christ before then.
Again, you're implying something I never said simply to argue for its own sake. I'm fully aware that Paul claimed that most of what he knew came from revelation, but he also supplemented it later with information in Israel. I never claimed Paul was not proclaiming Christ before then.
But that is a narrow reading that doesn't consider other relevant verses as I explained. "Believe and you will be saved" doesn't mean "only belief in Christ will save you eternally." Otherwise the devil and his demons will be saved as well. Context, and other verses apply.
I'm not sure why you addressed this to me. We must have a misunderstanding. I have said this same thing before as well. You must do more than just believe in the existance of Christ. You must place your faith IN Him. "If you love me, you will obey my commands, and my father will love you, and we will come and make our home with you."
I did not claim to know how all Israel will be saved. Only that Paul states it.
I was referring to your statement that "I did not claim to know how all Israel will be saved. Only that Paul states it. It's an incorrect, and narrow, interpretation because you are taking one line of verse and not reading the others written by him, which explain what he meant by that. By analogy, people take the statement "believe and you will be saved" to mean all one has to do to be saved is believe. It's the same type of false, and narrow, analysis. JWs do it all the time. http://144000.110mb.com/trinity/index.html -
225
Do you hate God
by Star tiger ini beginning to think that this would be a good way of thinking, a totally righteous being would not let all the shit that is happenning to people prevail, this being cannot have the best interests of man as his first priority, it's all about ego and no matter how the human familty suffers, he hates pretty much everyone, as the tv show says, your fired, let's get a better god, one who at least gives everyone a chance!!.
i welcome comments from god apologists, to at least have an argument as to why they put they're faith in someone that does'nt give a shit about them!.
star tiger.
-
-
jonathan dough
Tammy: Jonathan, maybe you should just stop saying that God rejected His people?
Paul says, "By no means!"
See my answer to Aguest below, so I don't have to retype it.
AGuest: Now, you might think that this means He could reject some, but not reject ALL. That, too, is inaccurate. Because ALL have sinned. He will not, however, be so unrighteous so as to save SOME of them... and not ALL of them. They rejected Christ as their king... and as a result salvation came to the NATIONS; however, once the FULL number of the nations have come it... it turns back to the entire nation of Israel, dear one. All 12 tribes. Which is why NO MAN can number the "crowd" (who come out of EVERY nation... including Israel).
I don't now what religion you claim to belong to, by mainstream Christianity teaches that your view is incorrect, and has for two thousand years. Reference to "the entire seed" does not mean every Jewish Israelite or the entire nation, even if they reject Christianity in the future, even if they deny Christ. Paul makes this abundantly clear. You need to read other verses to place this in context and understand what it means. Also, you fail to quote those verses that prove you wrong. Paul explains that when Israel is grafted back in it is because of their rejection of unbelief, in other words, their eventual belief, in Christ. They were rejected because of their unbelief, but those who believe will be saved based on their conversion, not because they are Jews by nature or are under the Old Covenant. A remnant of Israel will be saved, not the entire nation, and only under the Christian New Covenant. I discuss the New Covenant in great detail here: http://144000.110mb.com/144000/i-3.html#A
Also, the "root" Paul refers to does not refer to all Israelites of all time. Granted, the root is holy, but it refers to the patriarchs. And while the remnant might be entitled to special providence in the future which remains a mystery to us, it applies only to the remnant. "Israel remains holy in the eyes of God and stands witness to the faith described in the Old Testament because of the firstfruits (or the first piece baked) (16), that is, the converted remnant, and the root that is holy, that is, the patriachs (16), NAB 11:16-24 Notes. According to Paul, "full inclusion" does not mean all natural Jews, but only some of them.
"Romans 11:1 ("... has God rejected his people? Of course not) "... is to be regarded as conveying the sense of an objection. Paul, in the previous chapters, had declared the doctrine that all the Jews were to be rejected. To this a Jew might naturally reply, Is it to be believed, that God would cast off his people whom he had once chosen; to whom pertained the adoption, and the promises, and the covenant, and the numerous blessings conferred on a favorite people? It was natural for a Jew to make such objections. And it was important for the apostle to show that his doctrine was consistent with all the promises which God had made to his people. The objection, as will be seen by the answer which Paul makes, is formed on the supposition that God had rejected "all his people," or "cast them off entirely." This objection he answers by showing,
(1) That God had saved him, a Jew, and therefore that he could not mean that God had east off all Jews."I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin." Romans 11:1
(2) That now, as in former times of great declension, God had reserved a remnant. Romans 11:2-5; "2 God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don’t you know what Scripture says in the passage about Elijah—how he appealed to God against Israel: 3 “Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me”[a]? 4 And what was God’s answer to him? “I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.”[b] 5 So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace.
(3) That it accorded with the Scriptures that a part should be hardened. Romans 11:6-10; "6 And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.
7 What then? What the people of Israel sought so earnestly they did not obtain. The elect among them did, but the others were hardened, 8 as it is written:
“God gave them a spirit of stupor,
eyes that could not see
and ears that could not hear,
to this very day.”[a]
9 And David says:
“May their table become a snare and a trap,
a stumbling block and a retribution for them.
10 May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see,
and their backs be bent forever.”[b] "
(4) That the design of the rejection was not final, but was to admit the Gentiles to the privileges of Christianity. Romans 11:11-24; " 11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!
13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. 15 For if their rejection brought reconciliation to the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16 If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches.
17 If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18 do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20 Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.
22 Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23 And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree! "
(5) That the Jews should yet return to God, and be reinstated in his favor: so that it could not be objected that God had finally and totally cast off his people, or that he had violated his promises.
At the same time, however, the doctrine which Paul had maintained was true, that God had taken away their exclusive and special privileges, and had rejected a large part of the nation." See Barnes Notes on the Bible. -
225
Do you hate God
by Star tiger ini beginning to think that this would be a good way of thinking, a totally righteous being would not let all the shit that is happenning to people prevail, this being cannot have the best interests of man as his first priority, it's all about ego and no matter how the human familty suffers, he hates pretty much everyone, as the tv show says, your fired, let's get a better god, one who at least gives everyone a chance!!.
i welcome comments from god apologists, to at least have an argument as to why they put they're faith in someone that does'nt give a shit about them!.
star tiger.
-
-
jonathan dough
Why don't you show us where in the Bible? If it isn't mainstream, and preached by a fringe group, then it really is novel in light of orthodox teachings. Which religion teaches this?
I did, and Shelby typed it all out above (peace and love to you; thank you for that).
She typed out some verses, failed to cite them, and failed to analyze them properly.
As to the Spirit teaching:
John 14:26 "But the Counsellor, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."
John 16:13 "But when He, the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears and he will tell you what is yet to come."
But Tammy, you left out where the Bible says Jesus "opened their minds to understand the Scriptures." Luke 24:45. And "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 2 Timothy 3:16."." In times past there was no Scripture and of necessity God made direct contact, but you're applying an antiquated exception. One is to study the law, day and night. Psalm 1:2. It's the Gospel that is preached, and that is found in the New Testament.
You make it sound as though a Christian need never read the Bible at all, but that kind of mysticism is dangerous and opens the door for the devil to step in with misinformation when the truth is in black and white before us. Believers don't wait for the truth to drop out of the sky, but they should take "the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God." Eph. 6:17.
No, actually that is what the Bible is there for, to teach us. Of course we ask for understanding, but as it relates to Scripture if that is where the answer lies. I'd rather not wait for voices whispering in my head. You need something a bit more concrete than that, and we
have that already.No, I believe you missed this.
A good chapter to read is Hebrews 11. (I hope that you read it... I could type it out if anyone would rather not look it up) But none of those people (Abraham, Enoch, Moses, Abel, Noah, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Rahab, etc, etc) had scriptures telling them what to do or believe.
Those verses aren't meant as an instruction manual for those people. It wasn't instruction, but illustrated the degree of their faith as an example to us. You're mixing apples and oranges. You act as though the world doesn't need a Bible.
No scripture told Noah to build an arc, or told Abraham to leave his land, or told Moses to lead the people out of Egypt. Yet they did these things... and they are all commended for walking by their faith. Not by their SIGHT. They had no 'concrete' bible, and they were praised for their faith.
I'm not claiming that God doesn't communicate with his followers, but to base your entire concept of Bible truth on voices in your head is reaching and extremely dangerous. Had there been Scripture in those days I'm quite certain that those men and women of old would have consulted it. I'm not talking about your conscience helping you discern right from wrong, but relying on voices instead of the Bible is patently unscriptural today.
Paul did not recieve revelation through the scriptures either. He had the scriptures and they did nothing for him. He received revelation straight from Christ, the Truth.
Although he also consulted the pillars in Jerusalem and Peter for information on Christ. If there wasn't refelation to some people we wouldn't have a Bible. Paul, like older prophets, were conduits, which I hope you aren't claiming to be, and they most certainly did consult the Law. In the Christian Era with access to Scripture, faith is inseperable from Scripture. Otherwise you wouldn't even know about Jesus - in whom you are to have faith in.
We might not all have that, at least not yet. So we may have to rely on the bible (concrete/and by sight) for a time. But we should yearn for the Spirit to teach us, shouldn't we? We should have faith in that; ask for ears to hear and eyes to see?
Never apart from Scripture. You're walking down a dangerous road.
I think so. But I think so many don't even think this is possible because religion does not teach it. Religion puts all the emphasis on sight - the bible teaching. Not on faith - the spirit teaching. Religion limits the spirit to the bible. Seems backward to me.
Not meaning to insult, but you might consider reading more, listening to other preachers and ministers, etc. The radio is a good start. Christianity is faith-based. Too much, in my opinion in light of how people often never crack a Bible. They don't all put an emphasis on sight.
In light of everything I've explained, Christ on the Cross was addressing not all the Jews who had a hand in his death, but his statement was most likely limited to those Roman soldiers
"Most likely" is an interpretation. Can you see that?
All right, I'll change that. He definately was addressing only the ignorant Roman soldiers who nailed him to the cross. And my previous post certainly verifies that.
If you must interpret (which can be mistaken), then would you not rather err on the side of mercy, and of love, and of forgiveness to all? "Love covers over a multitude of sins".
Utter nonsense, and unbiblical. What religion do you belong to? Judgment Day is approaching.
I believe I did just that. (- showed where it is written that Christ and/or God cast the Jews off)
I'm sorry, but you did not. Paul, in fact, states just the opposite. He states it direct (without any sort of needing to interpret things or find their implication)... "God did not reject his people". Straight out of the bible. As shown in the above post written out from Romans Chapter Eleven.
Please go back and re-read my post because it either went over your head or you ignored it because you completely mischaracterized what I wrote. The Jewish remnant that is saved comes in through grace, just like you quoted, under the New Covenant, not under the Mosaic Law. That is the entire thrust of my argument, what the Bible teaches, and what Paul and the inspired writer of Hebrews wrote. The Old Covenant is done away with, Christ rejected those who attempt to be justificed under the Mosaic Law, and God did not reject his people if they come in under the New Covenant, saved by grace, through faith. Read it again, carefullly this time. Let's not get too snippy. We're basically on the same side.
I did not claim to know how all Israel will be saved. Only that Paul states it.
But that is a narrow reading that doesn't consider other relevant verses as I explained. "Believe and you will be saved" doesn't mean "only belief in Christ will save you eternally." Otherwise the devil and his demons will be saved as well. Context, and other verses apply.
That it is based on a promise - not works; certainly NOT the law. But on the grace and love and promise of God.
You just proved my point to yourself and the rest of us. If all are saved by works, the Jews can't gain eternal salvation under the Mosaic Law but only by grace, through faith, and not by works. Under the New Covenant only.http://www.144000.110mb.com/directory/jehovahs_witnesses_beliefs_salvation.html
Jonathan, maybe you should just stop saying that God rejected His people?
Paul says, "By no means!"
And there is more than just a remnant - because Paul also says "I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening IN PART until the full number of the gentiles come in and so ALL ISRAEL will be saved."
Yes, I agree with you that it is not by adherence to the law that anyone is saved. That it is by faith; by grace; by mercy; by love... all of which God has the right to show to anyone he chooses.
You're free to ignore the Bible and all the verses that apply. Your method of analysis is much like the JWs who read things too narrowly and out of context. Christ clearly rejected the old ways, and stomped the dust off his feet. As I said, all Israel does not mean every Jew who ever lived. Andif they come in, it is under the New Covenant, if they accept Christ. They cannot be saved by adherence to the Mosaic Law.
-
225
Do you hate God
by Star tiger ini beginning to think that this would be a good way of thinking, a totally righteous being would not let all the shit that is happenning to people prevail, this being cannot have the best interests of man as his first priority, it's all about ego and no matter how the human familty suffers, he hates pretty much everyone, as the tv show says, your fired, let's get a better god, one who at least gives everyone a chance!!.
i welcome comments from god apologists, to at least have an argument as to why they put they're faith in someone that does'nt give a shit about them!.
star tiger.
-
-
jonathan dough
"I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew.Don’t you know what Scripture says in the passage about Elijah—how he appealed to God against Israel “Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me”? And what was God’s answer to him? “I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.”So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.
You just proved my point, and obviously didn't read what I wrote. The Jewish remnant that is saved comes in through grace, just like you quoted, under the New Covenant, not under the Mosaic Law. That is the entire thrust of my argument, what the Bible teaches, and what Paul and the inspired of Hebrews wrote. The Old Covenant is done away with, Christ rejected those who attempt to be justificed under the Mosaic Law, and God did not reject his people if they come in under the New Covenant, saved by grace, through faith. Read it again, carefullly this time.
-
27
do you think the GB are wondering why armargeddon dosn't come?
by highdose inare they deluded enough to think that it must happen soon?
or are they just stringing everyone along?.
personaly i think that russell had good intentions and probably belived what he wrote ( although dosn't make it right) but i don't belive that any other gb has really belived the trash that is supposed to be the jw religon.
-
-
jonathan dough
Patience. It'll be here soon enough.
An earth destined for fire and complete destruction is made clear by 2 Peter 3:10,11: "But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a mighty roar and the elements will be dissolved by fire and the earth and everything in it will be found out. ... everything is to be dissolved this way," (NAB; "Total destruction is assumed (11)," notes 3,10). "...the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat" (2 Peter 3:12). "But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men" (2 Peter 3:7). Peter's warning reemphasized Zephaniah's warning, where the ancient prophet transmitted the Almighty's words, "I will utterly consume all things from off the face of the ground, saith Jehovah. I will consume man and beast; I will consume the birds of the heavens, and the fishes of the sea, and the stumbling blocks with the wicked; and I will cut off man from off the face of the ground, saith Jehovah" (Zephaniah 1:2,3)
Complete destruction of man on earth is intended. " Their blood will be poured out like dust and their entrails like dung. 18 Neither their silver nor their gold will be able to save them on the day of the LORD’s wrath.” In the fire of his jealousy the whole earth will be consumed, for he will make a sudden end of all who live on the earth (Zephaniah 1:17, 18). The Jehovah's Witnesses theory that they alone, their great crowd, will survive Armageddon and be ruled from heaven by the 144,000 is simply not in accord with Scripture.http://144000.110mb.com/144000/index.html#IIA
3 Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.” 2 Peter 3